3 ms·

The accusation was that Twitter was working with the US government to censor speech on the government's behalf. Which would be a first amendment violation. The

by weberer 11d ago

The accusation was that Twitter was working with the US government to censor speech on the government's behalf. Which would be a first amendment violation. The FBI's defense is that they technically never ordered Twitter to take down anything, but merely "flagged" posts and sent those flags to Twitter execs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_Files https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_Files This type of loophole was (likely) closed after the ruling of Murthy v. Missouri and the "Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship" executive order. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-411_3dq3.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-411_3dq3.pdf https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_14149 https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_14149

api 11d ago
Is that a first amendment violation though if they voluntarily complied? It’s a private company. Free speech doesn’t mean I’m entitled to use your property to post and amplify my speech. I also find the context of the whole thing suspect since Trump in his second administration has openly used the FCC and other federal pressures to attack speech he doesn’t like and Musk’s X has not been “free speech absolutist.” I always thought it was just the far right being mad their side wasn’t in charge, and that when they got in power they would be even worse. That seems vindicated.
- weberer 11d ago
  >Is that a first amendment violation though if they voluntarily complied? The entire point of the case was to determine exactly that. Read the judgement. If it were an open and shut case, it never would have made it to the supreme court. >and that when they got in power they would be even worse. That seems vindicated How in the world did you get to that conclusion from Murthy v. Missouri and the "Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship" order?
  - api 11d ago
    From the open use of the FCC to threaten television networks for saying things the president doesn't like? Among many other examples? That's just a particularly overt one. I'm just saying overall behavior -- outside this specific case -- is not consistent with a regime (or a larger political movement) that believes in free speech. It's consistent with "we want to be the ones in charge determining speech," with opposition to Twitter's previous moderation being motivated by that rather than principled belief in free speech. The net effect of the Twitter takeover was not to make it a free speech absolutist platform but to shift the pattern of selective boosting and selective de-boosting and moderation to one that favors the far right's message.

by weberer 11d ago

api 11d ago

Is that a first amendment violation though if they voluntarily complied? It’s a private company. Free speech doesn’t mean I’m entitled to use your property to post and amplify my speech. I also find the context of the whole thing suspect since Trump in his second administration has openly used the FCC and other federal pressures to attack speech he doesn’t like and Musk’s X has not been “free speech absolutist.” I always thought it was just the far right being mad their side wasn’t in charge, and that when they got in power they would be even worse. That seems vindicated.

weberer 11d ago
>Is that a first amendment violation though if they voluntarily complied? The entire point of the case was to determine exactly that. Read the judgement. If it were an open and shut case, it never would have made it to the supreme court. >and that when they got in power they would be even worse. That seems vindicated How in the world did you get to that conclusion from Murthy v. Missouri and the "Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship" order?
- api 11d ago
  From the open use of the FCC to threaten television networks for saying things the president doesn't like? Among many other examples? That's just a particularly overt one. I'm just saying overall behavior -- outside this specific case -- is not consistent with a regime (or a larger political movement) that believes in free speech. It's consistent with "we want to be the ones in charge determining speech," with opposition to Twitter's previous moderation being motivated by that rather than principled belief in free speech. The net effect of the Twitter takeover was not to make it a free speech absolutist platform but to shift the pattern of selective boosting and selective de-boosting and moderation to one that favors the far right's message.